You’re being deliberately obtuse and are repeating propaganda that’s irrelevant for total water usage. Per acre suburbia consumes more, but as it stands farmin

You’re being deliberately obtuse and are repeating propaganda that’s irrelevant for total water usage. Per acre suburbia consumes more, but as it stands farming is the vast majority of water consumption overall. It doesn’t matter how efficiently they use it. If farmers don’t make major cuts the lake will be gone. Getting rid of lawns and golf courses will barely slow down the decline, let alone change the direction. You’re talking about optimizing 20% of the water users and suggesting the 70% is fine, which is insane. Put another way, if all urban usage stopped immediately, the lake would still dry up because of the farmers irrigating away with reckless abandon. As the article points out, this happened once already when SLC was much smaller and it was just lucky enough to be rescued by a thousand year rain event. Farmers can pound sand, regardless of their water rights. Constitutional water rights for a shared resource are a travesty. They should pay for it like the rest of us so market dynamics can properly identify what is important and the lake can be protected.